Law Essay Examples: Expert Samples With Detailed Analysis

The central issue is whether Alice's advertisement constituted an offer capable of acceptance, or merely an invitation to treat. If Alice's advertisement was an offer, Bob's email would form a binding contract, entitling him to remedies for breach. However, if the advertisement was an invitation to treat, no contract exists between Alice and Bob.

The general rule in contract law is that advertisements are invitations to treat rather than offers (Partridge v Crittenden [1968]). This principle prevents sellers from being bound to sell to multiple buyers simultaneously. However, exceptions exist where advertisements contain sufficiently clear terms and demonstrate an intention to be bound (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]). In Carlill, the court held that an advertisement promising payment for using a product became an offer because it specified clear terms and was made to the world at large with the intention of being bound.

Applying these principles to Alice's situation, her advertisement appears more like a unilateral offer than a mere invitation to treat. The phrase "first to respond gets it" indicates clear acceptance criteria, similar to the performance-based acceptance in Carlill. The specific price term ($500) and identification of goods (laptop) provide certainty. Unlike a typical retail advertisement inviting customers to make offers, Alice's statement creates a mechanism for immediate acceptance by the first responder.

Bob's email stating "I accept your offer" constitutes valid acceptance under the postal rule, which provides that acceptance is complete when communicated (Entores v Miles Far East Corporation [1955]). Even though the parties communicated electronically, the modern application of this rule to emails means Bob's acceptance was effective when sent, not when received. At this point, a binding contract formed between Alice and Bob.

Alice's subsequent sale to Carol constitutes a breach of her existing contract with Bob. The fact that Carol offered more money is irrelevant; Alice was already bound to Bob. Her subjective preference for the higher offer does not negate her legal obligations under the contract formed with Bob.

Bob can therefore claim breach of contract and seek remedies including damages for non-delivery. The measure of damages would typically be the difference between the contract price and the market price, though Bob might also claim specific performance if the laptop had unique qualities making damages inadequate.

In conclusion, Alice's advertisement was sufficiently certain and indicated intention to be bound, making it an offer rather than invitation to treat. Bob's acceptance formed a valid contract before Alice sold to Carol, giving Bob grounds for a breach of contract claim.

The evolution of duty of care in negligence reflects an ongoing tension between compensating injured parties and preventing indeterminate liability. While the Caparo test has indeed narrowed the scope of duty compared to earlier approaches, characterizing it as "excessively restrictive" oversimplifies a complex policy balancing act.

The duty of care concept in English tort law underwent significant expansion under Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], which established the neighbor principle: you owe a duty to persons you can reasonably foresee might be injured by your acts or omissions. However, the broad reach of Anns v Merton [1978], which applied a two-stage test of foreseeability and policy considerations, led to concerns about liability expansion.

The modern Caparo v Dickman [1990] test replaced Anns with a three-stage approach requiring foreseeability, proximity, and that it be fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty. Critics argue this framework, particularly the "fair, just and reasonable" element, allows courts to deny recovery based on policy concerns even when harm was foreseeable and a close relationship existed.

However, the restriction serves legitimate purposes. Indeterminate liability, the concern that one negligent act could create liability to vast numbers of claimants, threatens the insurance system's viability and could deter beneficial activities. Some relationships involve complex policy considerations that simple foreseeability tests cannot capture. Police operations, for example, require discretion that might be compromised by fear of liability for every decision made under pressure.

The test's flexibility also allows evolution. Recent cases show courts distinguishing between different factual situations rather than rigidly applying Caparo. The Supreme Court in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] emphasized that established duty categories should be applied directly without requiring fresh Caparo analysis for every case.

Alternative approaches present their own difficulties. A pure foreseeability test, while appearing fairer to individual claimants, could create the indeterminate liability problem that motivated Caparo's development. The current English approach at least provides relative predictability through established duty categories.

That said, certain applications of Caparo do appear to deny recovery where justice would suggest otherwise. Psychiatric harm cases show particular restriction, with the "primary victim" and "secondary victim" distinctions sometimes producing arbitrary results.

The characterization of the modern test as "excessively" restrictive ultimately depends on one's view of tort law's purpose. If negligence law exists primarily to compensate injured parties, the Caparo restrictions may indeed be excessive. However, if tort law must balance compensation against other social goals, preventing defensive practices, maintaining insurance affordability, preserving governmental discretion, then restrictions become necessary features rather than excessive barriers.

Judicial review, the power of courts to review and potentially invalidate legislative or executive actions, operates fundamentally differently in the United States and United Kingdom due to their contrasting constitutional foundations. The U.S. system grants courts explicit authority to strike down unconstitutional legislation, while the U.K. system maintains parliamentary sovereignty even while allowing courts to review government actions.

American judicial review finds its foundation in Marbury v Madison (1803), where Chief Justice Marshall established that courts possess the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution's status as supreme law creates a hierarchy where ordinary legislation must conform to constitutional requirements. When conflict arises, courts have the final word.

In contrast, the United Kingdom has traditionally operated on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, meaning Parliament can make or unmake any law and no body can override parliamentary legislation. Courts could review government action for legality but could not declare Acts of Parliament invalid. The Human Rights Act 1998 modified this position by allowing courts to issue "declarations of incompatibility" when legislation conflicts with Convention rights, but Parliament retains authority to maintain the incompatible law if it chooses.

The primary difference lies in what courts can do when they find governmental action problematic. American courts can strike down statutes, rendering them void. British courts can declare actions ultra vires if they exceed statutory authority, and can issue declarations of incompatibility, but they cannot invalidate primary legislation.

Several factors account for these differences. First, the U.S. Constitution was created as a conscious act of founding, establishing a new government with defined powers. The document itself claims supremacy over ordinary law. The U.K. lacks a single written constitution, instead operating through statutes, conventions, and common law that evolved over centuries.

Second, the American system was designed with explicit separation of powers among co-equal branches of government. Judicial review serves as a check on legislative and executive power. The British system historically concentrated power in Parliament, with the executive drawn from and accountable to the legislature.

Third, different conceptions of democracy underlie the systems. The American approach treats constitutional rights as pre-political, existing independent of majority will and requiring judicial protection. The British approach has traditionally held that democratic accountability through Parliament provides the primary protection for rights.

Recent developments show some convergence. The Human Rights Act, constitutional reform including a Supreme Court, and growing judicial assertiveness suggest British courts are expanding their role. However, parliamentary sovereignty remains the theoretical foundation.

The central question is whether David possesses the mens rea (guilty mind) required for murder despite not intending to kill Emily. Murder requires intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, raising the issue of whether David's intention to scare satisfies this requirement, or whether his liability should be for manslaughter instead.

The actus reus (guilty act) for murder is clearly established: David's action of pulling the trigger directly caused Emily's death. The complexity lies in determining David's mental state and whether it constitutes the mens rea for murder.

English criminal law distinguishes between direct and oblique intent. Direct intent exists when causing death or serious harm is David's purpose. Oblique intent exists when death is not David's purpose but is a virtually certain consequence of his actions and he realizes this (R v Woollin [1999]). David lacked direct intent; his purpose was to frighten, not to kill or seriously injure Emily.

The question is whether David had oblique intent. Under Woollin, the jury may find intention where death or serious harm was a virtually certain consequence of the defendant's actions and the defendant appreciated this. However, David believed the gun was unloaded. From his perspective, death was not a virtually certain consequence because he thought no bullet would be fired. His mistaken belief about the gun's condition means he lacked the appreciation required for oblique intent.

Without the mens rea for murder, David's liability falls to involuntary manslaughter. Unlawful act manslaughter requires an unlawful act that is dangerous, and that act causes death (R v Church [1966]). Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger, even believing it unloaded, is clearly an assault, an act causing another to apprehend immediate unlawful violence.

Is David's act dangerous? The objective test asks whether a reasonable person would recognize the risk of some physical harm. A reasonable person knows that pointing guns at people and pulling triggers carries serious risks even if one believes the gun is unloaded. David's act therefore satisfies the requirements for unlawful act manslaughter.

David might argue he lacked mens rea because he didn't know the gun was loaded. However, mistake about circumstances doesn't necessarily negate liability for manslaughter. His assault was intentional, even if the fatal consequence wasn't. The criminal law holds people accountable for death resulting from intentionally dangerous unlawful acts even when the specific consequence wasn't foreseen.

David therefore lacks the mens rea for murder but is liable for unlawful act manslaughter. He intentionally committed an unlawful assault, that act was dangerous by objective standards, and it caused Emily's death.

For more guidance on selecting the right topic for your essay type, see our law essay topics guide. Understanding the type of essay you're writing shapes everything from your structure to your analytical approach.

The goal isn't to copy these examples, it's to understand the principles that make them effective and apply those principles to your own unique arguments.